I have no idea how canon Kuldahar is outside of IWD (it's on the FR wiki, but all the citations are to IWD), but it's not one of the Ten Towns. I suspect this is because it's a tiny druidic village, more a holy site than a town. It's also located in the Spine of the World, which I don't think is quite Icewind Dale proper (although it is where almost the entire game is set). That also explains why it's not on that map. The Spine is further South.

I think Easthaven is oriented differently on this map than it is in Icewind Dale. On this map, Lac Dinneshere is north of Easthaven, but in the game it is south of the town. I'm guessing the map of Easthaven in the game is rotated about 180 degrees from this map.

Anyway, back on topic, Kuldahar is probably to the southeast of this map.

hrm...The Forgotten Realms Atlas by Karen Wynn Fonstad (c 1990 by TSR, Inc.) has a reasonable close-up of the Ten Towns area on page 62 and does not list Kuldahar or any other landmark found in IWD--you would think that something as notable as The Great Oak, The Severed Hand, or Dragon's Eye would show up. No, those locations were created specifically for the game and most likely got retconned as canon after its success. More modern maps might display them but my atlas does not.

Like many ancient maps, we can probably state that the in-game maps are really just approximations--from Kuldahar go generally northeast for a day, turn east by the triple-forked tree, and a two-day hike will bring you to Dragon's Eye, for example. In "reality", D&D would allow for mages to use the third-level spell flight to scout an area, or for rangers/druids to speak with the birds to get a feel for the general feel for the area outside the visual range of a person on the ground.

Does anyone know a place where we could ask for official confirmation whether Kuldahar is considered canon or not? Any official D&D or Forgotten Realms or WoTC forum? (tagging @LadyRhian‌ because she knows stuff^^)

I have been wondering this for many years and I'd like to finally know.

I'd very much like it if Kuldahar was canon.(Even if it was made canon post game release)

I'd be sad if Kuldahar wasn't canon. I always thought it was taken from one of the Campaign Setting books, just like everything in BG. Then again, canon in the Realms is what you make it out to be. I don't think Ed Greenwood would turn down the great idea that is Kuldahar.

Kuldahar is *NOT* canon. There is no mention of it in the earliest maps of the region. The Ten Towns are: Bryn Shander; Lonelywood, Targos, Bremen, Termlaine, Caer Koenig, Caer Dinneval, Easthaven, Dougan's Hole and Goodmead. The two closest towns to the Ten Towns Region are IronMaster and Fireshear (and both are 100+ miles away, with IronMaster being the closer (about 100 miles to Fireshear being closer to 200 miles away). The only tree-like structure is the Hosttower of the Arcane, in Luskan, which looks like a Giant Dead Tree. Luskan is about as far from the Ten-Towns as Fireshear.

This information is from the Forgotten Realms Atlas, published in 1990. The original Boxed set came with maps (Circa 1987) and it's not a very detailed map. There's a spot that says, "Icewind Dale", but shows no lakes, no towns or anything else.

The 1993 version of the Campaign Setting does not have a map that includes the Ten-Towns area, but there is a paragraph write up in the "Grand Tour of the Realma" book under the "Savage North" subheading section. FR5 mentions Icewind Dale and the Ten Towns with no mention of Kuldahar this is from 1988. It has another map, but it's the same amount of detail as the original campaign setting map, but includes Ironmaster but not Fireshaar.

Essentially, the Ten Towns didn't even exist until R.A. Salvatore wrote about them in the original Drizzt books. All there was was a mention of "Icewind Dale" on the original map- no towns at all. If, as Scriver says, that Canon means mention in a sourcebook, Kuldahar is NOT Canon. Certainly, Baldur's Gate and Amn are mentioned and exist on maps from the very beginning of the world. By contrast, one could say that Maztica didn't exist on maps because we never got to see the whole world, only "The Forgotten Realms" part of it. (Lest you forget, Kara-Tur and the east aren't shown on the maps, nor Al-Quadim, but the maps are not extended to those areas.) Now, if a map of the entire world had been created, you'd be justified in saying that they aren't canon, but it's rather like pointing at a map of The USA and saying Europe is not Canon because the map doesn't show it.

Minor objection: Kara-Tur is present in some detail in the Forgotten Realms Atlas; however, you are correct in that Al-Quadim is not, nor is Maztica--those places hadn't been invented yet when the Atlas got published.

I have absolutely *no* idea what the updated canon map looks like. I suppose I should find one and see what things look like now.

I have absolutely *no* idea what the updated canon map looks like. I suppose I should find one and see what things look like now.

Is there such a thing as a comprehensive map of the realms? All the maps I've ever seen omitted things. I guess they just have to. MarkusTay on Candlekeep does maps which incorporate many places and sites from official publications, and they are really busy! A standard map of Faerun features maybe 10 per cent or so of the places that are actually there. Just like our real world maps...

I'll have to look if any reference exists in the official timeline book. It goes to the end of 3.5. Spine of the World and Icewind Dale arent hospitible places to adventure especially the former, and had less coverage sourcebookwise.

The fact that Kuldahar doesnt appear in older source materials isnt conclusive. Things are added and retconned regularly, some good, some bad.

A famous tree in the North would be the Grandfather Tree. Which iirc is a treant.

I'm for expanding the definition of "canon" to include texts and maps from the computer games as well as from the original source books. It's rare that the games directly contradict the source books. Instead, they add new areas, characters and stories, to make good computer games. If the game is good and isn't riddled with contradictions against the source books, let's add it to the canon.

I completely disagree. That would mean developers would be forced to comply to even stricter sense of canon and constantly bounce things off of Wizards rather than be (relatively speaking - they're still not free to do whatever they wish, after all) free to do their own thing. I see computer games much as I see pnp campaigns - they're your adventures and you're free to what you want in them (as far as the game mechanics allows, of course), but Wizards isn't going to care what happened in them.